chasteh

>Did you really just compare the integrity of modern US immigration law to the mid-20th century law of minority regimes in India and Africa ? ...and in the same reply suggest that others should have a "more realistic world viewpoint" ? No. He was showing how the standard of laws dictating between "right" and "wrong" is violated even in a view that turtlespeed would endorse. For example, it was illegal for the blacks to protest during the civil rights movement, but at the same time few people today would consider it "wrong." Thus, a law doesn't necessarily make it "right" or "wrong," it just gives the criterion by which law enforcement officials and nationalists judge the actions of other people. >On a sidenote: Right and wrong are points of view, much like good and evil. Actually, those are all ethical statements, i.e. attempts at "moral correctness." Right and wrong are evaluative terms compared to ethical criterion. The point of view comes in when you either decline or accept a given set of ethical standards. (I.E: Standards that are laid out in: Ethical egoism, social contract theory, contractarianism, utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and so on.) >The fact that they were (or are) written into law means that somebody, at some time, believed it to be "right", even if it wasn't you. They believed it to be right, but that doesn't make it "right" or "wrong." Remember, ethics is a field in which thinkers attempt to find a set of normative criterion as "correct." Moral correctness is the goal. Unfortunately, this hasn't been shown, even for social contract theorists, which apparently is what you are here.

"Nuhh uhhh!! You did it too!!! Nya nya nya nya nya!!!" - futuredivot As if "You did it too" said that conservatives werent so guilty. Oops!

Oh! Satire! I haven't seen that in a while. Where is Billvon, anyways? Perhaps you could be more clear in explaining the inconsistency you see within my post here and the post I had in the other thread.

"NUh UHHH!!!! Democrats did it too! They did it first!" "You did it too" doesn't negate the statement. Oops!

You know, I was just thinking about that movie and Will Smith's movies a couple of hours ago. I forgot the name of it. Thank you. "Why do CEO's get paid so much?" "Because of Socialism!" That is the link.

"CEOs get paid too much" "No They don't" "They get paid too much because the government intervenes in the market, allowing a market to be exploited for specific firms only, while other people have to pay for it" "Fair enough." "Your wrong, Rush Limbaugh is God, and I love Jesus." "Me too" "So modern democrats are progressives and therefore socialists" "What?" "Yep." "Nope... for X reasons" "I still say yep." edit "Oh yea? Well one of your heroes is a specific example of police-state socialism at work" "Victory!" "What the fuck are you guys talkin about" "See Above"

Hold on Hold on. It isn't a defeat in Afghanistan. Were just finding more ways to piss-off Middle-Eastern militias so that they can attack us again in 20 years. Maybe that time we will get it right, sort of like all the other empires did as they tried to consume Afghanistan. Then it will be a victory

>Do you think a person should be guaranteed happiness in their career choice? Not necessarily, but I do think they have rights as workers and their employers have many obligations to treat them accordingly, and some of them just so happen to come from economic examples - compensate your workers fairly, and they will be happier - thus they will produce more. Your tagline is an example of the mentality that exists among power enthusiasts. Find a way to exploit your workers any way that you can, and you will reap the rewards. That is a mentality I am opposed to. I think it is sick, an expression of sadomasochistic business practices (you know, the kind that Capitalism and Freedom wish to avoid - i.e. "No man is to be used as a means to the ends of another man.") >" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Interesting... that sounds far more aligned with a manipulative mind than a free-market oriented personality would ever wish to admit on the surface. So which is it, do you think a man can be used as a means for another man? Or is every man a means to his own ends? Is your tagline consistent with that?

>you know, those middle-class guys like Geithner that don't pay their taxes Conservatives are typically middle to upper class persons who feel that they are unfairly taxed and wish to have a smaller-less restrictive government. Unfotunately, as a result, they often "forget to" pay their taxes or find ways of getting around paying them, just like the Wal-Marts and Bank of Americas that they own or manage forget to do. Oops!

>(edit:) Extremist Left is not that far from extremist right. Nailed it. Both tend to resort to fascism to implement policies and enforce them. Well said. Scratch that. >Not as far as you might think. Yea, as if 2009 U.S. were comparable. Almost missed that. Maybe when Obama rounds all the Jews up and buries them in our backyards you will have a comparison. Not yet though.

The only one who was responsible for the Bay of Pigs invasion. You know what, nevermind Rush. Never. Fucking. Mind.

>Dude, you are the one that left out the key word in our debate correct! Right, it was a mistake. Not a rock. >You have some splanin to do. Actually, I just did. Thanks. >Oh, and yes, I see the rocks Well now we know your not totally blind. A little bit goes a long ways after all. Sheesh.

"Oh life is good! Nice try Funny, but nice try" There are three rocks t here. You say "Nice try" yet fail to explain yourself. Rocks. Your post. Life is good.

Mmmm yea. Nothin like a Bay of Pigs invasion to start off the morning. Just out of curiousity, you consider Kennedy to not be a modern democrat?

>>What value, otherwise, does saying that modern democrats=progressives=socialists give us? Nothing. >Hey dude! Where is the word "modern"? Gotta change things to make your point??? Actually, no. The point remains. >Point stands and you dig more sand. Yes, my point still stands. And without the use of emoticons. Schopenhauer must be your daddy or something, because you are using all of the ideas of his laid out in his Principle of Sufficient Reason. (That reason isn't needed to give us truths about the world.) The problem is, it doesn't give us much when we actually try to form arguments. It only attempts to piss the opponent off so that they will not fight anymore. Thus, we can add another "rock" to your pile.

There is one. They still climb over it.

And one more for the rock pile. I expected at least alittle bit more from you, considering at least a few of your posts have had more content in the last few days. My mistake. Theres a rock for you, too, Turtlespeed. edit: How does Kennedy's being a democrat demonstrate the generalization? It surely shows one democrat has showed socialistic tendencies. So have Bush and Reagan. Does that mean that I can make a generalization about how republicans are socialists? No. I can only say a few. Rush: Also, way to go on weakening your statement. Who would have thought, there are some (AKA At least one) democrats such that they have socialistic tendencies. Does that mean you can accurately say the democratic party is? No. You realized this and said you meant to say something else. What value, otherwise, does saying that democrats=progressives=socialists give us? Nothing.

>Simple enough, and nothing unfair about it. Yea huh. Theres nothing unfair about convincing people to love their servitude. Or is that just noise?

I am of the opinion that if you took all the "benefits" away, they woul still come in droves. Have you ever been to Mexico? Have you ever seen Juarez?

>Did you really just post this? What are you trying to say? Do you think it is "true" that something is wrong? Do you know anything about ethics? >Illegal immigrants also accept risks to come here. Remove or lessen the risk and we'd get more. Increase the risk and we'd probably get less. Am I disagreeing with that at all here? Each of you, except for Tom, has done excellently at blowing my original posts way out of proportion. Well done. Maybe we can bring your smear campaigns back into context. Here was the statement I made before each of you started. "As in morally wrong? It is "bad" that the wealthy have to be taxed for you to prosper? Ok... sure it sucks, but at some point in time you have to pay for the things the government provides - roads, air traffic control towers, the police, firefighters, and so on. He is saying that you always end up using those services for the purposes of building and protecting wealth. Even libertarians acknowledge the necessity of those services. Are you saying that they aren't necessary, or that the wealthy should pay less than they do now? Who else is going to pay for it, the middle class? The poor?"

Congratulations, again. You just confused liberalism with laziness. Way to go.

No it worked out quite well. Thanks for playing, though.

Modern democrats are far more conservative than they used to be. Most of them support earning wealth as opposed to strictly producing for the purpose of producing. So they aren't socialists. Also, progressives are somewhere inbetween a person who still supports building wealth but at the same time supports higher taxation and laws that work against the wealthy, yet they still aren't socialists. They take it one step further than the modern democrat. And the socialists that you refer to would have nothing to do with today's democrats in any way shape or form. They are far closer to libertarians in their protests of the conservative and democratic parties. Again, your generalization is plain false.

Sure sure. The world is a better place with pissed off redneck conservative if and only if it is better of with old hippie liberal douche.

>FYI: I never equated illegal immigration to murder, doing that is just your way of trying over emphasize my argument No shit! I combined a hyperbole with a slippery slope, and painted it with your words. >to try negate the truth Just out of curiosity, what are you considering "the truth" here? That you dislike immigration? Is it the "truth" that illegal immigration is wrong? Please. >and attempting to circumvent your arguments baseless foundation. What is my argument, exactly? Do you even remember?